Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 10 Sep 2018 09:24:13 +0100 | From | Quentin Perret <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v6 13/14] sched/topology: Make Energy Aware Scheduling depend on schedutil |
| |
Hi Rafael,
On Sunday 09 Sep 2018 at 22:13:52 (+0200), Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Fri, Sep 7, 2018 at 5:29 PM Quentin Perret <quentin.perret@arm.com> wrote: > > On Friday 07 Sep 2018 at 10:52:01 (+0200), Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > Well, why don't you implement it as something like "if the governor changes > > > from sugov to something else (or the other way around), call this function > > > from the scheduler"? > > > > I just gave it a try and ended up with the diff below. It's basically > > the exact same patch with a direct function call instead of a notifier. > > (I also tried the sugov_start/stop thing I keep mentioning but it is > > more complex, so let's see if the simplest solution could work first). > > > > What do you think ? > > This generally works for me from the cpufreq perspective, but I would > add "cpufreq" to the name of the new function, that is call it > something like sched_cpufreq_governor_change().
Ok, no problem.
> Also do you really need the extra work item? Governor changes are > carried out in process context anyway.
Ah, good point, I can remove that. I just tried and got the following lock warning on boot, though:
[ 2.518684] ============================================ [ 2.523942] WARNING: possible recursive locking detected [ 2.529200] 4.18.0-rc6-00086-g940e7a9fd5ec #10 Not tainted [ 2.534630] -------------------------------------------- [ 2.539888] kworker/2:3/1349 is trying to acquire lock: [ 2.545059] (____ptrval____) (cpu_hotplug_lock.rw_sem){++++}, at: rebuild_sched_domains_locked+0x2c/0x598 [ 2.554559] [ 2.554559] but task is already holding lock: [ 2.560332] (____ptrval____) (cpu_hotplug_lock.rw_sem){++++}, at: cpufreq_register_driver+0x80/0x1d0 [ 2.569396] [ 2.569396] other info that might help us debug this: [ 2.575858] Possible unsafe locking scenario: [ 2.575858] [ 2.581717] CPU0 [ 2.584135] ---- [ 2.586553] lock(cpu_hotplug_lock.rw_sem); [ 2.590785] lock(cpu_hotplug_lock.rw_sem); [ 2.595017] [ 2.595017] *** DEADLOCK *** [ 2.595017] [ 2.600877] May be due to missing lock nesting notation
That seems to happen because cpufreq_register_driver() calls cpus_read_lock(), which is then called again by rebuild_sched_domains() down the line. So it might just be a missing lock nesting notation as the warning suggests ?
I'll have a look.
Thanks, Quentin
| |